Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Qcourt: L/Epublic of Tbe
Qcourt: L/Epublic of Tbe
Qcourt: L/Epublic of Tbe
l\epublic of tbe
~upreme
~bilippineg
QCourt
Jtilantla
FIRST DIVISION
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution
dated July 28, 2014 which reads asfollows:
"A.C. No. 10449 (Francisco Binay-an, et al. vs. Atty. Atanacio D.
Addog). - The complainants are heirs of Barot Binay-an and plaintiffs in
Civil Case No. 005-CAR-07 for Annulment of Documents filed with the
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), La Trinidad,
Benguet, against the defendants Angeline Damaso (Damaso) and the
Cordillera Small Business Assistance Center, Inc. The complainants are
represented in said case by Atty. Jerome W. Selmo (Atty. Selmo), while
Atty. Atanacio D. Addog (respondent) represented the defendants.
According to the complainants, on February 8, 2008, Damaso, who
is the constituted representative of the heirs of Barot Binay-an, called for a
meeting in Mandarin Restaurant. Paul Palos (Paul) and Bienvenido Palos
(Bienvenido ), who are also heirs of Barot Binay-an and their co-plaintiffs
in Civil Case No. 005-CAR-07, and the respondent were present in the
meeting. During the meeting, Damaso and the respondent managed to
convince Paul and Bienvenido to execute separate Affidavits of Desistance,
which were later notarized by the respondent.
The respondent
subsequently submitted the Affidavits ofDesistance to the NCIP, which the
NCIP Hearing Officer denied. The NCIP Hearing Officer also cautioned
the respondent on the ethical consideration in having the affidavits
submitted. The respondent later withdrew his representation for the
defendants. Thus, the complaint for misconduct against the respondent,
which was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), docketed
as CBD No. 08-2303. 1
In his answer, while admitting that he was present during the
meeting in Mandarin Restaurant and notarized the affidavits of desistance,
the respondent denied the complainants' charges and stated that: Paul and
Bienvenido' s affidavits of desistance were freely executed; he was not
Rollo, pp. 2-3.
237
RESOLUTION
"lawyering" for Paul and Bienvenido; and he submitted the affidavits to the
. ,.,,,q{jj 11w1.I)i:ClP 1 i;\,g~l;ia~Pf his clients and not in representation of the complainants,
.... ::~'.i::~~.J.!C)..l~h..:J.~ 2 -
,,
. .,
"
.4
. ,.t
.....'.;
~" '"'4-"':ar\:J1.t5.(!tJl~~,,
-"-'.:..~_;., ~: rn:"
.. , In,R~~d~tion No. XIX-2011-191 3 dated May 14, 2011, the IBP
xx xx
(3) lfno motion for reconsideration has been filed within the period provided for, the IBP is
directed to forthwith transmit to this Court, for final action, the subject resolution together with
the whole record of the case. (Emphasis ours)
- over -
237
RESOLUTION
about it. In fact he showed that he needed the affidavits badly as in fact
he went on to present the same to the NCIP Hearing Officer;to prove that
the Palos had clearly wanted to withdraw their complaint against the
defendants. The affidavits of desistance [were], however, rejected by the
NCIP Hearing Officer. 7
In this case, the respondent knew that Paul and Bienvenido were
represented by counsel, Atty. Selmo. His act of preparing the affidavit of
desistance, even assuming that it was only the joint affidavit of Paul,
Isabela Daniel and Romana which he drafted and notarized was true,
nonetheless encroached upon the legal functions of Atty. Selmo.
Worse, the respondent even disclosed that the affidavits of desistance
were executed by the affiants in exchange for a certain sum of money.
Thus:
ATTY. ADDOG: Yes, Your Honor, are claiming certain amount which
is [P] I 00,000.00 each, Your Honor, in exchange for the
withdrawal of the complaint filed in NCIP, Your Honor. So, I
have advised them, if that is the case, for the protection of my
clients you execute this affidavit of desistance. So, that was
signed. 11
xx xx
- over-
237
Rollo, p. I 41.
Id. at 67-73.
Id. at 68.
10
A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR
TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS
AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
II
TSN, February 20, 2009, rollo, p. 73.
..
. ,,
~
RESOLUTION
COMM. CACHAPERO: Are you saying, Atty. Addog that those who
executed affidavits have already received [~] 100,000.00?
ATTY. ADDOG: Yes, Your Honor. 12
237
12
13
i4
15
16
Id. at 78-79.
Canons of Profossional Ethics, Canon 9 (Negotiations with opposite party).
A.C. No. 3149, August 17, 1994, 235 SCRA414.
Id.at418.
Id. at419.
RESOLUTION
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
EDG
0. ARICHETA
SR
237